Why is BF held at a higher level than CoD.

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2758 posts) -

I ask this because I don't think Im playing the same game as the rest of you. I will admit that I have not given the BF franchise nearly the amount of play time as I have CoD over the years, but I still don't see the draw to BF4 outside of the godly visuals. My experience so far is that it takes a clip and a half to drop someone just like in Halo. People talk about campers in CoD, it is just as bad if not worse in BF4. People sit in spawn points in BF4 and will literally have people just sit and spawn kill. The rank up system is ridiculously slow and presents a massive disadvantage to lower levels. I mean seriously, why are you as an Assualt player started off with an AK12. The recoil in that gun is RETARDED!!! Wouldn't a noobie be better off with a M4??

So don't come back at me and say I just suck! I admitted earlier that I have not given BF3 or BF4 the same amount of playtime as say Ghosts, Black Ops 2 or what have you! It is a truly beautiful game and I would love to sink my teeth into it, but I just don't get the draw!

#2 Edited by p3anut (6001 posts) -

You suck bro. Stick to your spray and pray getting kills 50 feet away in CoD.

#3 Posted by Jankarcop (10864 posts) -

lmao fps on consoles

#4 Posted by Link3301 (1882 posts) -

Battlefield and CoD are quite different. There aren't really any campers in Battlefield, those are most likely people holding positions you are talking. Battlefield isn't a game where you can just run around on your own and shoot everyone. You need move carefully, try and stay with some squadmates, and catch objectives to dominate. Use squad spawns so you aren't sitting in your base on your own. Use your brain rather than the instincts CoD has trained you to use. Battlefield is much more tactical than CoD so there is going to be very little skill translation between both games.

#5 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

My experience so far is that it takes a clip and a half to drop someone just like in Halo.

lol not even close. You must be the worst shot of all time.

#6 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

still with this worn out tired old angle.

#7 Posted by MBirdy88 (9294 posts) -


Graphics, sound, atmosphere.

Scale ... feels like a proper battle, not constant crappy little skirmishes.

Variety - Classes, Vehicles, modes.

Gunplay - far better than CoDs ... sorry your a stereotypical cod guy who thinks people shoot die from one shot in the leg at 10 miles away... really crap pea shooter like experience.

You do suck.... I still use the default weapons as Assault and Engineer. face it.

#8 Posted by _Matt_ (9589 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

The rank up system is ridiculously slow and presents a massive disadvantage to lower levels. I mean seriously, why are you as an Assualt player started off with an AK12. The recoil in that gun is RETARDED!!! Wouldn't a noobie be better off with a M4??

So don't come back at me and say I just suck! I admitted earlier that I have not given BF3 or BF4 the same amount of playtime as say Ghosts, Black Ops 2 or what have you! It is a truly beautiful game and I would love to sink my teeth into it, but I just don't get the draw!

Seriously? You clearly do not know how to burst fire, you can't just go full auto with ARs. I've been using the AK-12 on BF4 now for a while now, and I can usually get in the top 1/3 of the scores with it, it can be used at a surprising range when fired in 2 shot bursts, and will only take a few bursts to kill someone.

I do agree, the ranking system is overly slow, and the unlock system can be a little annoying, but it's designed for players who enjoy playing games in the long run, not relying on the 'rank up or unlock something new' every few minutes just to keep people playing.

#9 Posted by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (179 posts) -

Graphics mostly.

Single player sucks on both, but there were interesting sequences in BF3 such as the plane one.. more or less.

#10 Posted by _Matt_ (9589 posts) -

@Link3301 said:

Battlefield and CoD are quite different. There aren't really any campers in Battlefield, those are most likely people holding positions you are talking. Battlefield isn't a game where you can just run around on your own and shoot everyone. You need move carefully, try and stay with some squadmates, and catch objectives to dominate. Use squad spawns so you aren't sitting in your base on your own. Use your brain rather than the instincts CoD has trained you to use. Battlefield is much more tactical than CoD so there is going to be very little skill translation between both games.

Er, yes there are. There is always a good half a dozen snipers camping at any moment in the larger maps. It does add to the strategy though, I admit, you can choose to either take another route to stay out of firing line, or direct assault the building/camping spot to try and take them out quickly. They very rarely seem to be camping in order to defend objectives in my experience though, usually they just camp on mountain tops or top of buildings jus to get as many kills as possible.

#11 Posted by treedoor (7648 posts) -

TC sucks at video games.

#12 Posted by LustForSoul (5913 posts) -

There's no difference. Cod has smaller maps and obnoxious players, BF has bigger maps and obnoxious players. They're both extremely simple shooters.

#13 Posted by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2758 posts) -

@treedoor said:

TC sucks at video games.

If that is the best come back you have...! I think it comes down the simple fact that I have spent much, much more time playing CoD going back to CoD 2 than I have with any BF game. However, I feel my points are valid. Why isn't there a hardcore mode in BF4? Why is the rank up system so painfully slow? Why do all of the scopes feel like Im looking through a soda straw? Why don't grenades actually kill anyone in BF4? What happened to the destruction system from Bad Company 1 and 2. It sucks ass now!

#14 Edited by MBirdy88 (9294 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

@treedoor said:

TC sucks at video games.

If that is the best come back you have...! I think it comes down the simple fact that I have spent much, much more time playing CoD going back to CoD 2 than I have with any BF game. However, I feel my points are valid. Why isn't there a hardcore mode in BF4? Why is the rank up system so painfully slow? Why do all of the scopes feel like Im looking through a soda straw? Why don't grenades actually kill anyone in BF4? What happened to the destruction system from Bad Company 1 and 2. It sucks ass now!

no, none of your points are valid, beyond weird preference.

1) hardcore mode, oh that mode that breaks the balance of cod/any game that does it, just for the sake of "LULZ NO UAV AND INSTANT GIB WITH ANY WEAPON" leave insta-gib to games that actually do it well.... quake 3 and unreal tournament. besides, as far as I am aware there is a hardcore mode?

2) Rank up is slow intentionally, why does it even matter? anything worthwhile you start with or in vehicles case takes a few hours tops. most of it is random attachement unlocks ect. but the main point here is, why the hell does it matter.

3) ... not going to argue with this comment (scopes) just seems redundant and pointless. sniping on this is so much better.... well, shooting, aiming everything is. not that cod has any maps bigger than a shoe box to have proper sniping on anyway.

4) Grenades do.... just most people dodge them... and you know, since maps are more open unlike cod shoe boxs they are easy to run from, nobody likes a game with dominant grenades anyway... except cod players.

5) Levolution and Destruction in BF4 is better than Bad Company... you mistake crappy shoebox buldings that all look the same falling to the level of destruction available in BF4's entire maps.

sorry... but you lost me at the "takes long to kill like halo" and "grenades dont kill comments" .... again... all I can picture is someone who's never played anything beyond cod, cant aim or understand that not every attack you throw should insta gib.

#15 Posted by lostrib (44568 posts) -

this is just sad

#16 Edited by lonewolf604 (8561 posts) -

Battlefield is hugely over-hyped. All this nonsense about team-work and strategy is a myth. Its all marketing. I love it, but my point still stands. To me it feel like COD on a wide scale with vehicles.

#17 Edited by lamprey263 (26461 posts) -

it probably looks a lot better on next gen systems, but damn is it ugly on the PS3

anyhow, single player campaign is utter garbage, the online is fun though, that's where most of the appeal comes from for me

BF4 though isn't as fun to me as the previous titles like BFBC 1 & 2, BF1943, or BF3, and I'm playing the PS3 version and there's no pre-MP match Squad Mode to group with friends before entering a game, the MP maps are butt ugly

like any game though just keep playing, earn those weapons and class perks it'll get better

#18 Posted by Motokid6 (6494 posts) -

Arena shooters >>>> Millitary shooters.

#19 Edited by Wasdie (50935 posts) -

No.

#20 Posted by ThatOneDork (37 posts) -

@MBirdy88 says:

"Gunplay - far better than CoDs ... sorry your a stereotypical cod guy who thinks people shoot die from one shot in the leg at 10 miles away... really crap pea shooter like experience."

You're reaching here. Weapon feedback in the Battlefield series when it comes to the visual/audio aspect sure is nice, and I'll give you that. But Battlefield will never be able to match the fluid control system of COD no matter how hard it tries. I understand one game is a twitch shooter while the other is akin to a simulator, but both are horrible in regards to gun damage and such. In a videogame not everyone should die from one long range leg shot, sure. But that doesn't mean that the opposite should happen, where somebody takes about half a magazine of 7.62 rounds in a realistic game setting and then just flinches the pain away.

#21 Posted by wis3boi (32098 posts) -

TC sucks at BF confirmed

#22 Edited by MBirdy88 (9294 posts) -

@thatonedork said:

@MBirdy88 says:

"Gunplay - far better than CoDs ... sorry your a stereotypical cod guy who thinks people shoot die from one shot in the leg at 10 miles away... really crap pea shooter like experience."

You're reaching here. Weapon feedback in the Battlefield series when it comes to the visual/audio aspect sure is nice, and I'll give you that. But Battlefield will never be able to match the fluid control system of COD no matter how hard it tries. I understand one game is a twitch shooter while the other is akin to a simulator, but both are horrible in regards to gun damage and such. In a videogame not everyone should die from one long range leg shot, sure. But that doesn't mean that the opposite should happen, where somebody takes about half a magazine of 7.62 rounds in a realistic game setting and then just flinches the pain away.

Until I see it take 7 rounds to kill someone on battlefield I will agree with you. sadly that has yet to happen.

at long distance you take less damage.... but hitting someone with 7 bullets will kill.

you say "fluid control system" I say "dumbed down for Accessibility over Quality" which sums up CoD." "but thats a good thing" .... well for companies sales figures... maybe...

CoD is this horrible middle ground between twitch and haloish... I can survive too long on cod aswell, I can also die from ridiculous things for no reason, hit boxes are retardedly big especially on console versions. ive watch hundreds of kill cams where the bullet is even missing the body and still kills.

EDIT:

the whole "how long it takes to kill" is a stupid discussion anyway in this scenario.... as Halo literally takes ages... Batttlefield the scrub likely missed or "glancing hits" and thinks because his cursor indicates a hit that they should keel over and die like a pansy football player being kicked in the shin.... funnily enough cod-syndrome.

you cant stand infront of someone on battlefield and take a who assault rifle clip to kill like halo... the TC is flat out wrong and doesn't understand the mechanics.

#23 Posted by lundy86_4 (44657 posts) -

You suck. No two ways about it.

#24 Posted by foxhound_fox (91398 posts) -

Because CoD was always designed as a lowest-common denominator type game. Battlefield at one point was somewhat tactical in it's presentation.

#25 Posted by razgriz_101 (16871 posts) -

@lonewolf604 said:

Battlefield is hugely over-hyped. All this nonsense about team-work and strategy is a myth. Its all marketing. I love it, but my point still stands. To me it feel like COD on a wide scale with vehicles.

play with friends i a decent squad with everyone communicating and it is about team work and strategy providing people can compromise and adapt to situations...and no the 2 games feel and play vastly different.

#26 Posted by silversix_ (16900 posts) -

No bullet drop, no bullet delay, none existent recoil ,no spread (all weapons in cod are like lasers... and you think you're good at killing some1 across the map lolz), instead of having a huge field to play in you're instead playing in a map smaller than a freaking room, no vehicles for more varied combat/strategies, shitty sound effect they've been re-using since 07 (all guns sound the same in this garbage franchise), 18 player is max their crappy engine can handle LOL, easy kills with killstreaks to make you think you're good when its a f*cking AI'd dog killing shit for you etc... CoD is a joke of a franchise and every single person that plays this daily or even weekly should feel bad about themselves.

#27 Posted by Mr-Kutaragi (2462 posts) -

COD not tried something new for entire generation. They just do same thing on steroid, bring back down, steroid again. Like nuke they add, then take away, then add big bomb that burn everything.

#28 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3902 posts) -

Lol Battlefield. Just stick with the king CoD.

#29 Posted by cfisher2833 (2150 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

I ask this because I don't think Im playing the same game as the rest of you. I will admit that I have not given the BF franchise nearly the amount of play time as I have CoD over the years, but I still don't see the draw to BF4 outside of the godly visuals. My experience so far is that it takes a clip and a half to drop someone just like in Halo. People talk about campers in CoD, it is just as bad if not worse in BF4. People sit in spawn points in BF4 and will literally have people just sit and spawn kill. The rank up system is ridiculously slow and presents a massive disadvantage to lower levels. I mean seriously, why are you as an Assualt player started off with an AK12. The recoil in that gun is RETARDED!!! Wouldn't a noobie be better off with a M4??

So don't come back at me and say I just suck! I admitted earlier that I have not given BF3 or BF4 the same amount of playtime as say Ghosts, Black Ops 2 or what have you! It is a truly beautiful game and I would love to sink my teeth into it, but I just don't get the draw!

That's why you play on the "Hardcore" servers in BF; it's a far better game in hardcore. Bad Company 2 is still da best though.

#30 Edited by Zelda187 (1047 posts) -

I don't really care for either (especially CoD)

But I'll give Battlefield this, it's much more of a military simulation than CoD is.

CoD is basically an arcade shooter with military overtones. It's basically about who has the fastest reflexes.

Battlefield at least requires a little bit of strategy and teamwork. Which, let's be honest, SHOULD be a focal point in any military/war based game.

Run out in the open without using the slightest bit of teamwork in CoD, and it doesn't matter in the least.

Try that shit on Battlefield and...well...you're gonna have a bad time.

#31 Posted by danjammer69 (4150 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

lmao fps on consoles

lmao Sniper on Gamespot

#32 Edited by I_can_haz (6511 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

No bullet drop, no bullet delay, none existent recoil ,no spread (all weapons in cod are like lasers... and you think you're good at killing some1 across the map lolz), instead of having a huge field to play in you're instead playing in a map smaller than a freaking room, no vehicles for more varied combat/strategies, shitty sound effect they've been re-using since 07 (all guns sound the same in this garbage franchise), 18 player is max their crappy engine can handle LOL, easy kills with killstreaks to make you think you're good when its a f*cking AI'd dog killing shit for you etc... CoD is a joke of a franchise and every single person that plays this daily or even weekly should feel bad about themselves.

Agreed.

Sounds like OP is a total noob at games and gets his ass owned in BF. I enjoy owning COD noobs like him when they enter BF. You can always spot them too, they always spray bullets without hitting anything because of playing shitty auto-aim COD with no recoil or bullet drop, and they don't understand simple tactical maneuvers like flanking or playing as a team.

#33 Posted by Jankarcop (10864 posts) -

@danjammer69 said:

@Jankarcop said:

lmao fps on consoles

lmao Sniper on Gamespot

?

#34 Edited by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2758 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

I don't really care for either (especially CoD)

But I'll give Battlefield this, it's much more of a military simulation than CoD is.

CoD is basically an arcade shooter with military overtones. It's basically about who has the fastest reflexes.

Battlefield at least requires a little bit of strategy and teamwork. Which, let's be honest, SHOULD be a focal point in any military/war based game.

Run out in the open without using the slightest bit of teamwork in CoD, and it doesn't matter in the least.

Try that shit on Battlefield and...well...you're gonna have a bad time.

You obviously have never played any Hardcore modes in CoD!!!! You HAVE TO USE YOUR HEAD AND TACTICS or you will wind up going 2-20!!! Oh and I love how someone said that CoD sucks because you have an AI dog getting kills for you. How is that any different than being a tank hog and getting 10 kills that way? Any knucklehead can get kills in a metal behemouth!!!

#35 Edited by FoxbatAlpha (9637 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS: you suck. Try switching tactics. It's a different game and your COD experience will only get you killed.

#36 Posted by MBirdy88 (9294 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

@Zelda187 said:

I don't really care for either (especially CoD)

But I'll give Battlefield this, it's much more of a military simulation than CoD is.

CoD is basically an arcade shooter with military overtones. It's basically about who has the fastest reflexes.

Battlefield at least requires a little bit of strategy and teamwork. Which, let's be honest, SHOULD be a focal point in any military/war based game.

Run out in the open without using the slightest bit of teamwork in CoD, and it doesn't matter in the least.

Try that shit on Battlefield and...well...you're gonna have a bad time.

You obviously have never played any Hardcore modes in CoD!!!! You HAVE TO USE YOUR HEAD AND TACTICS or you will wind up going 2-20!!! Oh and I love how someone said that CoD sucks because you have an AI dog getting kills for you. How is that any different than being a tank hog and getting 10 kills that way? Any knucklehead can get kills in a metal behemouth!!!

lmao.... you realise hardcore mode is designed for "twitch shooting" and is not balanced. not even attempted to be balanced... NORMAL COD takes more thought. removing the minimap and adding instagib IS NOT MORE TACTICAL, but let me guess you considering camping like a scared child because any bullet or near explosion will instagib you unrealistically is "tactics"

you have it backwards, you fit the biggest cod stereotype of all.

#37 Posted by Netret0120 (2871 posts) -

I like both franchises ZOMG!!!o_O I have fun with both

#38 Posted by MBirdy88 (9294 posts) -

Call of Duty is like kids lazer tag at a bowling alley.

Battlefield is like proper paintballing.

#39 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

So the game plays differently to CoD and you suck at it cos of that and still try to play it as if it IS CoD and that makes it bad?

Gamers really are dumb sometimes

#40 Posted by marcheegsr (3018 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

TC sucks at BF confirmed

#41 Posted by Sushiglutton (5713 posts) -

Scope, graphics, sounddesign, variety

#42 Posted by Heil68 (48766 posts) -

It's not a clip it's a magazine.. FYI

#43 Edited by FLOPPAGE_50 (770 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

I ask this because I don't think Im playing the same game as the rest of you. I will admit that I have not given the BF franchise nearly the amount of play time as I have CoD over the years, but I still don't see the draw to BF4 outside of the godly visuals. My experience so far is that it takes a clip and a half to drop someone just like in Halo. People talk about campers in CoD, it is just as bad if not worse in BF4. People sit in spawn points in BF4 and will literally have people just sit and spawn kill. The rank up system is ridiculously slow and presents a massive disadvantage to lower levels. I mean seriously, why are you as an Assualt player started off with an AK12. The recoil in that gun is RETARDED!!! Wouldn't a noobie be better off with a M4??

So don't come back at me and say I just suck! I admitted earlier that I have not given BF3 or BF4 the same amount of playtime as say Ghosts, Black Ops 2 or what have you! It is a truly beautiful game and I would love to sink my teeth into it, but I just don't get the draw!

you're just bad.. the AK-12 is my most used weapon at 600 kills, and my KD is 1.95 on the PS4, I drop someone in 3-5 shots... its called CONTROLLED BURSTS you freaking noob... the fact that you try and "spray' in BF similar to Call of Duty makes me laugh, it's so sad, you would be terrible at Counter-Strike too, hell any game that requires you to control your recoil.

You can tell who the "casual" FPS baddies are so easily when they switch from COD to games like BF/Counter-Strike.

Try mastering both, like I did.

#44 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

@Zelda187 said:

I don't really care for either (especially CoD)

But I'll give Battlefield this, it's much more of a military simulation than CoD is.

CoD is basically an arcade shooter with military overtones. It's basically about who has the fastest reflexes.

Battlefield at least requires a little bit of strategy and teamwork. Which, let's be honest, SHOULD be a focal point in any military/war based game.

Run out in the open without using the slightest bit of teamwork in CoD, and it doesn't matter in the least.

Try that shit on Battlefield and...well...you're gonna have a bad time.

You obviously have never played any Hardcore modes in CoD!!!! You HAVE TO USE YOUR HEAD AND TACTICS or you will wind up going 2-20!!! Oh and I love how someone said that CoD sucks because you have an AI dog getting kills for you. How is that any different than being a tank hog and getting 10 kills that way? Any knucklehead can get kills in a metal behemouth!!!

Hardcore is really for noobs who want their kills to come as easy as possible.

I agree that criticizing killstreaks is stupid. You have to earn that dog by playing well.

Driving around in a tank is just asking to be ganged up on. Tactics are required to survive in a tank. People who dont know what they're doing in a tank usually get blown up or abandon the tank before they're able to get any kills.

#45 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

I always wondered about this as well. BF and COD have alot in common. I think COD gets hated because it's released every year. Outside of that the two games are casual trash. Anyone who prasies BF then turns around and bashes COD is so full of crap.

#46 Posted by Rage010101 (5470 posts) -

Wow, CoD has made you into a really really bad shot. You are literally the epitome of a casual and scrub at games.

#47 Posted by Joedgabe (5134 posts) -

@Master_ShakeXXX said:

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

My experience so far is that it takes a clip and a half to drop someone just like in Halo.

lol not even close. You must be the worst shot of all time.

in COD you shoot someone in the leg with a pistol 2 - 3 times and they die. The bullets bend also and the hit box for the head is freaking huge. There's no armor in COD so you die pretty much instantly is an arcade shooter full of campers. Vs BF which is meant to be a tactical one. Thus, people like him.

#48 Posted by Animal-Mother (27175 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

lmao fps on consoles

lol never contributing to a proper conversation.

Anywho I enjoy Cod Much more than Battlefield, I think it has some deeper mechanics. Some better team work objectives and overall everything just feels better.

Cod has gotten so fast based and is so reliant on specific weapons and strategies it's kinda shitty.

#49 Posted by DarkLink77 (31983 posts) -

@Master_ShakeXXX said:

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

My experience so far is that it takes a clip and a half to drop someone just like in Halo.

lol not even close. You must be the worst shot of all time.

Yo, this. If you can't 5-6 shot someone with a precision weapon in Halo you're garbage.

Also, Battlefield is garbage, just like Call of Duty. Neither one of those franchises should be held at a high level.

#50 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4325 posts) -

I started playing BF with 1943. I haven't bought a COD game since MW2.